To be clear ~ The proposed standardized wing-suit training program was NOT designed to address specifically or generally, any concerns an aircraft insurer may have voiced.

What a disingenuous statement. The insurer's letter has been carefully leveraged and publicized to promote the agenda of certain individuals, and you know that full well.

No I really don't...MY statement is verifiable fact, yours is hype.

If you're saying DSE 'published' the letter, check your facts.

If your saying the program was designed AFTER the letter was published...you're very wrong.

~disingenuous indeed.

The insurers letter which was an email, was not intended for public distribution...'certain individuals' knew that & were just as surprised to see it on the web as it's author.

I meant exactly what I wrote.

It has nothing to do with which came first or who leaked it.

It HAS been leveraged, right here on DZ.COM among other places, to provide support for the proposal, despite containing no evidence whatsoever that training deficiencies led to the problems described.

I did not say it was leveraged and I did not say it wasn't leveraged, what I said was~

The proposed standardized wing-suit training program was NOT designed to address specifically or generally, any concerns an aircraft insurer may have voiced.

You came back saying that statement is disingenuous and with more of your usual 'certain people' bullshit.

The statement is true, it was aimed at some whom I've spoken with, that because of vague and misleading accusative conjecture incorrectly believed that the program was set up as a quick fix answering the underwriters original tail-strike email 'to his customers'.

The discussion tone and manner of the follow-up to Robin thread helped lead to the confusion as the 'not demand' was misinterpreted as 'not needed' therefore no longer an issue.

Well...the WSI program IS still an issue.

What's disingenuous is inferring that since the insurance broker doesn't 'demand' USPA involvement...we ALL should ignore any benefit a program encompassing much more than tail-strike avoidance procedures offers.

What's disingenuous is regurgitating your "despite containing no evidence whatsoever that training deficiencies..." as some form of (what) misdirection as a response to my attempt to clear up a misunderstanding that's not relevant to 'leverage' in anyone's mind but yours.

I stand by MY statement~The proposed standardized wing-suit training program was NOT designed to address specifically or generally, any concerns an aircraft insurer may have voiced.

It's NOT disingenuous, vague, or misleading...it's not meant as between the lines accusation OR justification for what 'certian people' 'may' or 'may not' have done, at 'one time or another' regarding 'that thing' we're all so intimately familiar with...what was it again?